The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 1893 -y ��i ti✓�•i.. � . . rf '3'� y . � ;� ��.��:�� C�t o� ORONO ��. rr� � �.. � �� :: • �' `� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� ,,S�,�X ii��,. NO. 189 3 :=�:�:� • _t.:' -�: ' � . � �?, -� � j A RESOLIITION DENYING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO MLTNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SIIBDIVISION 1 AND 2 AND SECTION 10.03, SIIBDIVISION 9 (A) _ FILE #986 � � WHEREAS , . George F. Rovegno (hereinafter "the applicant" ) is the owner of the property Iocated at 2010 ' • Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: AII that part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter and Government Lot 3 , Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Prinicipal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 6 of Elbridge S. Barnes' First Subdivision in Section • 10, Township 117, Range 23; thence Southeasterly along the Southerly Iine of said Lot 6 a distance of 295.08 feet to a point, said point being the true point of beginning of the property being described; thence deflecting right at an angle of 90 degrees to a point in a Iine, said Iine being parallel with and 207.06 feet distant from the Southerl.y line of aforesaid Lot 6; thence Southeasterly along said parallel. I.ine to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northeasterly along said shoreline to its intersection with the Southerl.y Iine of aforesaid Lot 6; thence Northwesterly al.ong said Southerl.y Iine to the true point of beginning; EXCEPT that part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter and Government Lot 3 of Section 10, Township 117 . North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows : Commencing at a point on the Southerly �line of Lot 6 of Elbridge S. Barnes' First Sub- division in Section 10, Township 117, Range 23, distant 295.08 feet Southeasterly from the Southwest corner ,.�hereof; thence Southwesterly at right angles from said Southerly Iine 30 feet to the Southwesterly right-of-way Iine of Central Avenue, said point being the point of beginning of the property being described thence continuing Southwesterly at right angles from said Southerly Iine 102.31 feet; thence . deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 50 feet; thence def lecting Ieft 90 degrees a distance of 102.31 feet to said • Southwesterly right-of-way I.ine; thence Northwesterly to the point of beginning (hereinafter "property"); and Page 1 of 5 r � .:� �:•. � ' ';�_ . •�� F':,1.. . � l�x�. �� Cit� o� ORONO • �... ! � � .4�. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL '.� ." • �+� NO. 189 3 � :i � � � � .. �CV WHEREAS, the appl.icant has applied to the City for mul.tiple after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit a five foot high fence within' approximately 35 feet of the lakeshore where no structure or hardcover is allowed within 75 feet of the Iakeshore and a variance to Municipal. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Sub- division 9 (A) to permit construction of an accessory structure on a property that is unable to sustain a principal structure and � per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 the City must approve a condi-,. ;� . tional use permit in conjunction with the granting of a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) as the proposed accessory • structure and use of the property is to be recognized as a Iegal non-conforming use. WHEREAS , the City Council of Orono (hereinafter "Council.") has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission and the City staff and the written and oral comments of the applicant. • NOW, TH$REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the variance application of George F. Rovegno as proposed based on one or more of the following findings: FINDINGS l. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #986. 2. The property is Iocated in the LR-lA Single Famil.y Lakeshore Residential Zoning District and a portion of the property abutts the Iakeshore of Lake Minnetonka. 3. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B) - Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No Iot or parcel. of land which is divided by a ,public, private or platted road or road easement, which res�ults in any segment thereof being Iess than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of Iand across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any pro- � visions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individuall.y conform to the provisions of this Chapter in ' connection with construction of improvements thereon. Page 2 of 5 • � '�°��:; . , , t��', • , �-�� . � � � Clt o� ORONO�� , �`�` r �y r �� J • �� '� 1 .. �bE�Yi 1't ,; ,� .0 :�rK,; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL , �� . i �� • "f ' NO. 1893 �>: • - • •., The property is divided by a Hennepin County road easement. The lakeshore portion of the property cannot satisfy the LR- lA zoning district standards and could not sustain a principal structure. 4. The fence is considered an accessory structure and requires a principal structure on the parcel for fence � structure to be Iegal. _. 5. The five foot high fence has been placed at the inter- . section of a public lake access and a County road. The access is used during the winter months from December lst through March lst. 6. The five foot high fence pl.aced 20 feet from the center- line of the County road running approximately 200 feet along . the edge of the 40 foot road easement creates a serious sighting problem and endangers the public who use the access � and the County road. 7. The applicant claims he is limited in the use of his residential I.akeshore property because of the I.ocation of the publ.ic access and the adjacent commercial properties. These uses exist today as they did when the applicant purchased the property. 8. The City has agreed to construct a fence consisting of posts with a guard rail along the south side of the publ.ic access in order to deter the trespassers from the public access. 9. In a memorandum f rom the City Attorney dated November � 22, 1985, Kathleen Blatz stated the following: ". . . in order to buil.d a fence within 75 feet of the Iakeshore a variance is required. Subdivision 1 states that the setback �must be at I.east 75 feet from the shoreline." Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 as amended January 28, 1985 states as follows: Lakeshore.� Set� Back�Reyulations.._ The set back from the . shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no bui lding, f ence or wa 1 I over f orty-two inches � � but not in excess of seventy-two inches in height above original grade may be Iocated closer to the shoreline . than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Page 3 of 5 � • • . � J �. C�t o� ORONO � • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • - ` NO. 189 3 • • • • 10. In that same memorandum, the City Attorney notes that Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 complements Subdivision 1 by stating that no excavating, filling hard cover, temporary or permanent structures shall be permitted within 75 feet of the shoreline. Section 10. 22, Subdivision 2 - � Lakeshore -.Hard �.Cov_.er -.Reyulati.ons. Within 75 feet of" `� shorel.ine there shall be no excavating, filling, hard , cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25� hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shal.I be no greater than 30� hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35� hard cover. If one argues that Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 was always • interpreted to al Iow fences 42 inches or less within 75 feet of the lakeshore, the specific and more restrictive directive of Subdivision 2 would have precedence per Section � 10.03, Subdivision 2 as follows: Mor•e � Restrictive Provisions�To;Appl� Where the conditions imposed b'y '-any provision of the Zoning Chapter are either more restrictive or less restrictive . than comparable conditions imposed by any other 1aw, City Code provision, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind , the regulations which are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or re- quirements sha3.1 prevail. � ' When the code appears to contain different standards of restrictiveness, the regul.ations which are more restrictive or impose higher standards shall prevail. 11. To approve variances for a fence at the preser�It Ioca- tion and at the proposed height would establish a negative precedent in the review of similar applications. 12. The applicant maintains the fence provides protection for his lakeshore property from vandalism. The five foot high privacy fence may, in fact, serve to hide vandals from the view of adjacent neighbors and the police. • Page 4 of 5 � .� y ,� .. ' . , � . . l Clt� o� ORONO � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. 1893 • ' • • � 13. The privacy sought by the applicant can be achieved with natural plantings as Iong as the standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 - Traffic� Visibility are satisfied. 14. The City Council finds that granting variances to permit a privacy fence at the present location would be detrimental to the heal.th, safety and general. w�lfare of the . public, poses hazards for neighboring properties, de- preciates surrounding property val.ues and that such a fenceA '� would be in complete conf Iict with the intent and objectives . of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. FDRTHERMORE, B$ IT RESOLVED that Council hereby directs the applicant to remove aII sections of the fence and posts by December 15 , 1985 and further directs staff to work with applicant to identify alternatives to resolve the trespass problems associated with the pub].ic's use of the lakeshore access. � Adopted by the Orono City Council. on this 9th day of December, 1985. ATTE T: � � . � . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . orothy M Ha11in, City Clerk Mary C. B er, ayor � � � Page 5 of 5 • �